Et Verbum Caro Factum Est

G.D.O'Bradovich III

December 22, 2016

If we were to judge by attendance only, then we would suggest that the Roman Catholic church places somewhat more importance on the Incarnation than on the Resurrection. Interestingly, the Orthodox church emphasizes the Resurrection over the Nativity by adhering to ancient tradition, that is, and by ignoring the Papacy’s changes for the formulation of the dating of the Easter celebration that occurred in the 16th century. Although protestants never tire of condemning the perceived multitude of Papal errors in word, their actions of accepting the new dating of Easter demonstrates a type of dual mindedness not unknown to Saint James.

We suggest that the Orthodox church understands the Resurrection as one step to the explicit goal of becoming divine. As far as we know, the Roman church has no teachings regarding the future divinity of man, so their emphasis seems to be focused on God becoming man and man’s salvation. This emphasis on the salvation of immortal souls has been incorporated into evangelical protestantism.

The fourth Gospel explicitly equates the word of God with Jesus and this relationship has been the historical and ancient understanding of the second person of the Trinity.

It seems that the moderns are more literally minded than the ancients. Alternately, or more likely, the ancients may have a better understanding of the terms found in Scripture.

In the modern age, at least in the American Union, the word of God is said in reference not to Christ, but to the Bible. This is such a gross misunderstanding that we have not attempted to determine exactly when this idea appeared and gained a significant following. We sincerely hope this error is limited to the middle west, yet we feel our hope is in vain.

In modern fashion, certain protestants have transformed a formerly universal belief in the unseen risen Christ into a physical form, a mere book of paper and ink. The Gentle Reader can determine if this opinion or behavior is similar to, or identical with, the practice of idolatry.

The Jews have always been opposed to images that attempted to depict their God, for those who dwell in thick darkness are not the easiest subjects to render on canvas or in stone.

Since God did become incarnate as man, it was subsequently revealed to the church that Jesus could be depicted as an image or icon. Unlike the Roman church, there are no depictions of the Trinity in the Orthodox church. Therefore, representations of Jesus and his Saints are found in churches, in homes, and in more traditional countries, and are publicly displayed in businesses. We suspect that these icon promoting businesses have no commerce with either Jews or Moslems.

The Incarnation is rightly considered a mystery- the Lord who dwells in thick darkness has become completely human, yet, incredibly, remains completely divine. To suggest that Jesus is only partially divine or only human in part; or that Jesus is human, while Christ alone is divine, betrays a profound ignorance of the purpose of the Incarnation and Resurrection. This fundamental belief, if discarded or questioned, inevitably results in various interpretations or opinions of the Saviour’s earthly mission.

If the moderns cannot find agreement on this fundamental statement, then they should seek enlightenment from the ancient churches. I believe that the Roman teaching on the incarnation is correct, as far as I understand it. If Rome’s teaching is not identical to the Orthodox position, we defer to the Greek church, as we, unlike protestants, are reluctant to readily accept ecclesiastical innovations.

We are amused that most evangelical protestants accuse the Orthodox of worshipping the images found on icons. If this accusation were true, then it is true only when certain languages cannot differentiate between saint and God, and cannot distinguish between worship and veneration. God is God due to his essence, and saints are divine, not because of their essence, but because they have become divine through one aspect of God's energy. Perhaps our amusement is due to the possibility that the average layman in Orthodoxy is more informed regarding Orthodox belief than educated evangelical pastors are informed regarding Orthodox practices.

In Orthodox tradition, the Nativity has always been depicted on icons as transpiring in a cave. The Roman Catholics do not have an iconographical tradition of Jesus’ birth in a cave, instead, they use a creche. Since neither of the two Gospel accounts mention a cave, we suggest that this cavernous tradition is separate, both in time and place, from the creation of those Gospels, otherwise this tradition of Jesus’ birth in a cave would be related in both Gospels.

Additionally, Orthodox tradition clearly depicts the wise men in icons of the Nativity, although in the Gospel according to Saint Matthew, the wise men encounter Jesus in a house and Herod decrees that all children under the age of two years to be killed. Therefore, we infer from this gospel that the Magi did not honor Jesus near his birth, but much later. Once again, scripture is unaware of the unambiguous and clear imagery of the icons that represent the Nativity.​In conclusion, we are desirous that during this Advent season the Gentle Reader keep in mind that the Word of God is the second person of the Trinity, Jesus Christ, as understood through revelation and ancient tradition, not a collation of papers and ink.